abipup changed the title to OIP-75: Olympus Compensation Process .
OIP-75: Olympus Compensation Process
I am torn on this a bit. I do like the consistency we can convey, but it almost feels pre-mature without the other incentive options defined.
Currently with it being determined across each working group and their respective strategos is that they can be flexible depending on the needs of the department and the talent they are seeking to bring in.
If we adopt this proposed model as-is, we lose that flexibility granted during the stop-gap proposal and make our DAO more rigid which may lead to instability in the current contributors and whichever we might be courting to join.
If we delay the adoption of this until we have additional compensation legos at our disposal, strategos will be able to craft more complex contribution compensation packages for their respective divisions.
I'm going to abstain from a vote until we can discuss these finer points a bit more!
It’s so important that we are able to provide stability and predictability for our contributors. I appreciate all of the hard work that went into working through a system that will be transparent and fair!!
dr00 This is providing a framework for the same allocation levels that are being used in the teams currently with the stopgap. It doesn’t change the flexibility within the teams, it’s just formalizing the way the stopgap has been implemented.
I do agree about seeing all of the pieces of the puzzle together- it’s important to have a complete picture of okrs, bonus, and vesting, to align the goals of the DAO and long term incentives to our contributors.
This sounds fair to me, a couple questions:
1) Does this apply to Agora given its status as a project with its own budget? DropKick Darren recently put a lot of effort into a new compensation system for Agora that is very similar to this and quite good.
2) I don't see what happens if one over performs. For example, if there is an effort to push something out and we work extra that week?
I feel I spend a lot of time working on the DAO although it might not be visible.
E.g. I got compensated as a part timer in December though I felt with the time & effort, I should be considered full time.
I am working a lot on the app localization regarding RTL language support but the updates on these are semi-regular so it could be 1 month working in the background before the changes are submitted so how that would be evaluated? (Part vs Full time)
Mugen Good questions: one of the reasons that comp has been such a huge admin burden is that almost every Stratego had built their own assessment and comp system. Over the last 2 months, we started with OIP-45 salary maximums and then worked with the Strategos to take the best elements of each comp model. In December, over 60% of allocations were made using the new model. Once we get the base comp process defined, we will move to bonus and vested comp processes, which are meant to provide longer term incentives and reward longer term contributions as well.
Wish I saw this earlier. Been on my mind… Few points:
- Thanks for the transparency, please bring more. Maybe you can publish like working groups' meeting minutes on periodic basis - so that non-DAO ohmies can have insight on whats going on? Maybe with a time delay so as to not reveal time-sensitive information, and perhaps some parts REDACTED .. But I often sit and wonder "what is going on now in the DAO? anyone still working?" …
- It has itched on me for months now, that the compensation has no relation to the underlying value of the project. Knowing that there are winters as well as summers (bear and bull), there comes times when it can be kind of gritty for a sustained time. If we have a sustained barren environment for 3 years with OHM trading at close to RFV - then can we afford the dilution of hundreds of contributors receiving top level compensation as measured in dollars ? At 140 contributors, assume 10kUSD average payout, we would be paying out 16.8 MUSD per year with market cap at 225 MUSD. Over 3 years, that would take a huge chunk of our RFV/mcap.
bubbidubb you raise a bunch of good points here. Like many startups, Olympus has grown quickly and is now at the point where it makes sense to think harder about how we work together as a DAO, starting with more transparency about how we coordinate and compensate the work needed to achieve our reserve currency vision.
In particular, we need to get better at translating the vision into specific objectives and defining the metrics which will demonstrate whether we have met those objectives. The recent Olympus12 medium post was a good example of setting the objectives. Once we have objectives, we can start looking at how much it costs to achieve them and prioritizing which objectives we feel are most important (resulting in a budget tied to OKRs).
Will take a couple of months to get this all in place, but result will be full transparency on what we are paying to achieve certain objectives and how teams are performing on achieving those objectives.
a month later
Wow, more money to those who destroyed this protocol. Wall Street is so proud of you all….